Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/William Pina/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Overall editing similarly to past sock User:Plad02: ; disruptive speedy deletion tagging:. I have a strong feeling this is not a new user. Sro23 (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also I strongly believe this person has been editing anonymously as IP's a lot lately (example 1 example 2), it got so bad had to rangeblock 2600:1:b14a:576::/64 due to the disruption. Sro23 (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My case: I suck at editing/improving articles on Wikipedia. Whatever that is. Mallecura (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ and . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - Please block the sock indefinitely. Thanks, GABgab 20:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Similar edits at Template:Db-x2 to blocked sock accounts Special:Contributions/Mallecura and Special:Contributions/Plad02. They seem to be evading this IP range block by JamesBWatson (though this rangeblock is "anon. only", so they may still be editing from this particular IP range. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:58CB:1D7:CB4:B9FC (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I think this pretty much confirms it right here... and now they are tagging other sock accounts... 2601:1C0:4401:F360:58CB:1D7:CB4:B9FC (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I blocked them as a clear case of WP:NOTTHERE; looking at their contributions afterwards, I conclude that this is indeed a sock since they were doing exactly the same as previous socks did.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Account blocked. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Their user talk was tagged as SPI but nothing was posted here. When XfDWatcher undid the edit their edit summary Right now, I'm making constructive edits implies that they are socking. Primefac (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I would just like to say I agree with lodging this request. I wouldn't usually make remarks such as this to a new user, but when their very first edit was to MfD a (relatively unknown) community essay, then if I had known the sockmaster, I would have filed myself. &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  09:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * has a similarly formatted user page and made one of their first edits to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you (2nd nomination), however no other pages overlap and I don't really see any other correlation. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Similar user names though, eh ? 'Wiki' / 'XfD' - 'Helper' / 'Watcher'... &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  11:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as you say, and also Wikipedia centric. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I suspected XfDWatcher was a sock mainly due to the unusual interest in deletion discussions for a supposedly new user, as well as overlap with another sock. . I don't think WikiHelper1 is William Pina, but wouldn't be too shocked it it turned out to be sockpuppet of someone else, maybe this? Sro23 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, I added this pretty much only on Sro23's original templating. Primefac (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I've blocked the account as a sock of William Pina based on behavioural evidence which isn't necessarily listed here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - I have results, just need time to post them. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 23:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , as requested. Primefac (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I had suspicions about this account. GABgab 04:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no direct technical evidence for this case to connect back to William Pina as the data is . That said, there are definitely strong indications that the ranges that are being used now have been used by William Pina before. I'll let the closing admin decide on that. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 11:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  15:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * CAse closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)